Do you see any contradictions between your religion and meditating? Or even agreeing with certain teachings in Buddhism?

Yo Dudette,

Certainly there are differences between the two, and I agree with Pam that these differences should not be ignored, but I personally don't have a problem with picking-and-choosing-- we all tend to do it one way or another anyhow, as there's an old saying that if two people completely agree, then only one of them is actually thinking. As Jews, we have always felt we had the right and the obligation to search and use reason in our approach. Since Buddhism has no specific teaching dealing with a creator-god, it's fairly easy to combine many elements of the two.

And since my approach is pretty much non-theistic, although I do have the non-dualistic approach as a "default setting", my most typical response in this arena is "I don't know" (copyrighted 2011 by myself-- all violators will be prosecuted to the fullest).

That's definitely one thing that's hard for me to believe God would do.His creation is "going to hell" so he will sacrifice himself to save them? It just doesn't seem right. ....

BS"D

Ironically, as a Jew, I understand it completely. From my perspective the salvation of Christianianity is merely a special case of a basic deep Jewish concept of humanity.

To wit - our mystical tradition attempts to create a framework of comprehension that traces the infinite Divine through a series of understandable and measureable stages to the real flesh-and-blood physical world. It's as if these Jewish sages actually plotted out in their minds how the Divine which is transcendent (not bounded by space and time) can interact with space and time to make all of Creation and sustain it moment by moment. It is a fascinating study.

One of the offshoots of this study is the conclusion that the self-aware human mind, when seeking to align itself with the source of its existence, becomes functionally an extension of the Divine will. IOW, since what the Divine "speaks" instantaneously becomes reality (from the limited human perspective) then when one is aligned with the Divine will (one with the Divine) one is actually operating as a conscious agent of the Divine will. IOW, one is a conscious physical extension of the transcendent Divine. This is an awesome leap of intuition. It means that a mere human can actually function as a personal extension of the Divine will. Practically speaking that means that there is infinite potential for a human being.

Another offshoot of this is that any problems in the human condition can be rectified merely by individuals aligning themselves with the Divine will in their lives. This is the goal of Jewish mysticism.

Now from my perspective, Christianity took this framework of perception and transplanted it to another culture which did not live by the laws that accompanied the text which gave rise to these concepts. Without the culture and the laws Christianity was compelled to fill in the gaps with its own perspective. And since the current versions of Christianity are primarily rooted in Constantine's various "purges" (of ideologies not consistent with his own), those selfsame ideas were drawn directly from various other faiths held by Constantine (such as Mithraism and other ancient religions.)

So to me, Christian "salvation" is merely a special case of the Jewish notion of "redemption of the world" which is - as the mystics developed - a correction of the ills of humanity affected specifically by aligning oneself with the Divine will in one's moment-by-moment personal life.

Finally, the "sacrificial atonement of self" that is illustrated in the crucifixion is nothing more than a non-Jewish restatement of self-sacrifice in attaining the good of society that is common to most human cultures and even exists observably in the animal kingdom. But without the boundaries of Jewish culture in which to frame this self-sacrifice of a conscious extension of the Divine Christianity appears to have enshrined the concept in a unique godman Savior which is consistent with ancient Roman ideas IMHO.

This is what I believe that Maimmonides understood implicitly when he wrote about Christian beliefs and practices in his "Guide to the Perplexed"

As Jews, we have always felt we had the right and the obligation to search and use reason in our approach.

I think this is simply wonderful!

Interestingly enough, if you compare the noble eightfold path of Buddhism and the Ten Commandments of Judaism, there are some obvious similarities.

You add:

Since Buddhism has no specific teaching dealing with a creator-god, it's fairly easy to combine many elements of the two.

This makes perfect sense to me and is part of what I call a universal moral code.

I have to ask what non-dualistic approach means?

I like your sense of humor!

Thanks Dudette for your more than kind words, and let me just add that I believe your questions and comments have added a lot to this forum-- and I mean it.

"Non-dualistic" in the theological context means that G-d is so integral in creation as to be inseparable from it. However, there's no single form of this approach, nor are the ramifications universal. I was hoping to start a thread on this soon, but I've run into some roadblocks along the way, so it may have to wait until next week.

Now from my perspective, Christianity took this framework of perception and transplanted it to another culture which did not live by the laws that accompanied the text which gave rise to these concepts. Without the culture and the laws Christianity was compelled to fill in the gaps with its own perspective. And since the current versions of Christianity are primarily rooted in Constantine's various "purges" (of ideologies not consistent with his own), those selfsame ideas were drawn directly from various other faiths held by Constantine (such as Mithraism and other ancient religions.)